« ElőzőTovább »
Duke of Norfolk, in 1572. But the dignities were B<x«i, restored without the lands. His nearest relations profited The cm.. by their influence at Court to obtain grants of his chief "jTM*TM ancestral estates. The Earls of Nottingham, Nortii- deuanuss Ampton,* and Suffolk had each of them a share in the spoil ;—salving their consciences, probably, by the reflection that, despite his poverty, their young kinsman had made a great marriage. For his alliance, in 1606, with Lady Aletheia Talbot, daughter and co-heir of Gilbert, Earl of Shrewsbury, had already brought to him considerable means in hand, and a vast estate in prospect. The marriage, in higher respects, was also a happy one. But a natural and eager desire to recover what his father had forfeited cast much anxiety over years otherwise felicitous. He could not regain even Arundel House in London, until he had paid £4000 for it to the Earl of Nottingham.
Lord Arundel made his first appearance at Court in AR,',"n,
i r ATCol'RT.
1605. In May, 1611, he was created a Knight of the Garter. Thirteen years of James' reign had passed before the Earl was admitted to the Privv Council. This honour was conferred upon him in July, 1616. Five years more were to pass before his restoration to his hereditary office
* Part of Lord Northampton's large estates came eventually to Lord Arundel by bequest. He also inherited Northampton's houso at Greenwich, and occasionally resided there, until its destruction by fire in January, 1616. Chamberlain's account of the incident, given to Sir Dudley Carleton, is worth quotation for the comment with which it ends: 'There fell a great mischance to the Earl of Arundel by the burning of his house ... at Greenwich, where he lost a great deal of household stuff and rich furniture; the fury of the fire being such that nothing could be saved. No doubt the Papists will ascribe and publish it as a punishment for his deserting or falling from them.' Ten days before the fire, Arundel had testified, publicly, his conformity with the Church of England. But he had shewn long before that his religious views and convictions differed widely from those in which he had been brought up.
of Earl Marshal of England, although he had been made one of six Commissioners for the discharge of its duties in October, 1616. The baton was at length (29th August, 1621) delivered to him at Theobalds. 'The King,' wrote John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton, when communicating the news, 'would have given him £2000 a year pension withal, but—whatsoever the reason was—he would accept but the ordinary fee, which is twenty pounds per annum.' It is plain, however, that this assertion was an error. According to the ancient constitution of the Earl Marshal's office there were certain fees accruing from it which were now, under new regulations, to cease. The question arose, Shall the Earl Marshal be compensated by pension, or (according to a pernicious fashion of the age) by the grant, or lease, of a customs duty upon some largely vended commodity? The 'impost of currants' was eventually fixed upon. But the Earl had subsequent occasion to adduce evidence before a Committee of the Privy Council, that the rent paid to the King sometimes exceeded the aggregate duty collected from the merchants.*
There is some uncertainty as to the date of the earliest of Lord Arundel's many visits to the Continent. According to Sir Edward Walker, he was in Italy in 1609. But that statement is open to doubt. There is proof that in 1612 he passed some time in Florence and in Siena. With
* The question was complicated by opposition offered by the Lord Keeper Williams to the terms in which Lord Arundel's patent was originally drawn. The relations between Arundel and Buckingham were never cordial, and the Lord Keeper seems to have profited by that circumstance to make his opposition to the pension effectual. It is probable that he had good grounds for so much of his objection as related to certain powers proposed to be vested in the Earl Marshal's court. But on that point Arundel's views eventually prevailed—until the time of the Long Parliament. The'Lord Keeper's letter is printed in Cabala, p. 285.
Siena, as a place of residence, he was especially delighted, Booki,
Of the foundation of his collections—to which his Italian Tmcoj
journeys largely contributed—there are no distinct records ""abu*'
until the following year. J>hja»mss.
The tour of 1613, followed immediately upon the mar
riage of the Princess Elizabeth with Frederick, Count Ms.cou.
Palatine of the Rhine. The royal pair were escorted into t. m.
Germany by both Lord and Lady Arundel, who soon left Beginnings
the Rhine country on a new visit to Italy, and remained Akundelian there until nearly the close of 1614. During that long nmT' residence the Earl established a wide intercourse with the most distinguished artists and archaeologists of Italy, and made extensive purchases. The fame of his princely tastes was spread abroad. It soon became notorious that by this open-handed collector marbles, vases, coins, gems, manuscripts, pictures, were received with equal welcome. And from this time onwards many passages occur in his correspondence which indicate the keen and minute interest he took in the researches of the agents who, in various parts of the Continent, were busy on his behalf. The pursuit did not lack the special zest of home rivalry, as will be seen hereafter.
Not the least singular incident in the early part of Lord Arundel's life was his commitment to the Tower, at a moment when his favour with King James was at its height.
In one of the many impassioned parliamentary debates which occurred during the session of 1621 an allusion was i6si,May. made by Lord Spencer to the unhappy fate of two famous The ancestors of the Earl of Arundel, and it was made 111 £1 BETWEEN way which induced the Earl to utter an unwise and unjust ^"d«, retort. The matter immediately under discussion was a *ND
Book i, very small one, but it had grown out of the exciting quesTm cov- tion of monopolies, and it was mixed up with the yet more THiA»n°». exciting question of the overweening powers entrusted by Dbliahmss. the King to Buckingham. In the course of an examination at the bar of the House of Lords about the grant of a patent for licensing inns, Sir Henry Yelverton had made a furious attack upon the Duke. The attack was still more an insult to the House, than to the King's favourite, and it had been repeated. It was proposed, on a subsequent day, to call Yelverton to the bar for the third time, in order to see if he would then offer the apology which before he had refused. Arundel opposed the motion. 'We have his words; we need hear no more,' he said. Lord Spencer rose to answer: 'I remember that two of the Earl's ancestors—the Earl of Surrey, and the Duke of Norfolk, were unjustly condemned to death, without being heard.' The implied parallel was a silly one, but its weakness and irrelevancy did not restrain Arundel's anger. 'My Lords,' said he, 'I do acknowledge that my ancestors have suffered. It may be for doing the king and the country good service; and at such time, perhaps, as when the ancestors of the Lord that spake last kept sheep.' The speaker failed to see that by using such words he had committed exactly the same offence as that for which he had, but a moment before, censured the late Attorney-General, and had moved the House to punish him. On all sides, he was advised to apologise. He resisted all entreaty. When committed to the Tower, he still refused submission. Both the King and the Prince of Wales had to intercede for him with the House before he could regain his liberty.
With rare exception, the public incidents of Lord Arundel's life during the remainder of the reign of James Booki, are such as offer little interest, save as illustrations of cha- Thtcoii racter. In that respect, many of them testify to the failing which appears so strikingly in the story of the quarrel with """^mss. Lord Spencer. Some noble qualities lost part of their real lustre when pride was so plainly seen in their company. All that was best in Lord Arundel revolted at the grossness of the Stuart court. He often increased his own disgust by contrasting what he saw at Whitehall with the memories of his youth. His office of Earl Marshal precluded him from very long absences. Sometimes, when forced to mingle with courtiers for whose society he had little liking, he rebuked their want of dignity by exaggerating his own dignity into haughtiness. Against failings of this kind we have to set many merits, and amongst them a merit eminently rare in that age. Arundel was free from covetousness—save in that special sense in which covetousness, it may be feared, cleaves to all 'collectorship.'
In 1622 some anxiety was occasioned to Lord Arundel Advzb
by a singular adventure which befell his wife during her Udi residence in the Venetian territory, whither (in the course *t\w'i:. of a long Italian tour) she had gone to watch over the education of their sons; little anticipating, it may well be supposed, that her name and that of Lord Arundel, would be made to figure in Venetian records in connection with the strange story of the conspirator Antonio Foscarini.
After making some stay in Venice, Lady Arundel had taken a villa on the Brenta, about ten miles from the City.
In April, 1622, she was on her way from this villa to the Mocenigo Palace, her residence in Venice, when she was met by the Secretary of Sir Henry Wotton, English ambassador to the Republic. The secretary said that he was sent by the ambassador to inform her that the Venetian Senate